The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-14-2013, 10:58 PM   #51
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,987
Default

Whoever voted for Obama, is an absolute moron. That fact can't be denied. The guy lies through his teeth with every word he says. It's obvious he thinks he's a dictator, and has ZERO CLUE about economics, or how to do his job.

Let's make everything more expensive, make everyone more miserable, break a bunch of laws, circumvent the constitution, and rack up more debt than ALL the other Presidents combined! YAY!!!

Obama, Harry Reid, Pelosi, et al. will be remembered as some of the biggest criminals in U.S. history.
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 11:04 PM   #52
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,987
Default

The U.S. Democrat Socialists try to copy European Socialism.


Yeah, really working bozos!

Even with MASSIVE quantitative easing, the EU is still contracting, and unemployment is still going up.

What is it in your brains that refuses to recognize how economics work? Maybe you just LIKE being slaves to government control? Wake the **** up.
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 11:06 PM   #53
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
The U.S. Democrat Socialists try to copy European Socialism.


Yeah, really working bozos!

Even with MASSIVE quantitative easing, the EU is still contracting, and unemployment is still going up.

What is it in your brains that refuses to recognize how economics work? Maybe you just LIKE being slaves to government control? Wake the **** up.
Ahh the freak-out continues. Music to my eyes.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 11:46 PM   #54
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,987
Default

Also a special message to Blart, who is rarely seen these days.

Remember when I was telling you printing money was a bad idea...and you said 'what inflation'?

I told you that the gap between those who have assets, and those who don't have assets would become insurmountable?

Looks like I'm right again (just like on everything else).
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 02:40 AM   #55
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Obama thinks after insurance companies have dropped millions with more to come that he can tell them to change and give back people's insurance is comical and lies at the same time. The insurance companies love this: higher premiums and higher deductibles. Obama knows they won't go back now, and that is the plan. Force people off their individual insurances and into Obamacare with those higher costs that they can't afford and/or having their insurances dropped.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 06:06 AM   #56
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
Don't piss off Manning.
 
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun's Avatar
 
Time to believe!

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gensis Planet
Posts: 6,541

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C.J. Anderson
Default




Now they are fixing the problem.......on purpose!
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 08:30 AM   #57
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,477

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Brit has no clue about Singapore's healthcare, while quoting 20 year old sources (1995), just as Singapore's HSA's began to have a MAJOR impact.


OMG, you can't even read a dumbed down paper without getting confused.

The 2010 WHO report quote merely sourced the original papers on the introduction of the MSA's and reports on the outcome.

Quote:
WHO 2010 Report.
Reductions were not seen until the government recognised
supply-side forces and intervened with regulations (Hanvoravongchai 2002). Cost reductions, therefore, cannot be attributed to MSAs but rather
to direct government control (Barr 2001, Hsiao 2001, Dixon 2002)

"Cost reductions attributed to Direct government control" Got it yet??

No? ok, here's the abstact from Barr's report on MSA's in Singapore.

Quote:
Abstract

With the United States currently experimenting with medical savings accounts (MSAs), it is appropriate to revisit the Singapore experience, where the practice has been in place for a decade and half. Singapore runs a modern, effective health system at a fraction of the cost of most systems operating in the developed West. Although MSAs contribute to the framework of a cultural rhetoric of personal responsibility for health care, this article argues that the heart of the Singapore system of health funding, with its financial discipline, is government control of inputs and outputs and strict rationing of health services according to wealth.

Last edited by DenverBrit; 11-15-2013 at 08:33 AM..
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 08:41 AM   #58
B-Large
Ring of Famer
 
B-Large's Avatar
 
Expunged... Accidently?

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Everybody here knows my own ideas on that. I just think universal, single payer is inevitable. I don't even bother with the political argument over it anymore. I think it's just inescapably practical. Eventually, we will have no other option. I guess some people thought the ACA was some kind of sneaky stepping stone to that, but I never agreed with that take. I think the ACA was a last ditch effort by the insurance companies to avoid it. After all, ACA delivers everybody to the doorstep of the insurance companies. How anybody can think that's a stepping stone to single payer is beyond me, except maybe by the circuitous route that it will fail and then single payer will be inevitable. Me? I think it's inevitable either way. People on the single payer side of the equation are just waiting for common sense to lead everybody else to that same conclusion.
Single Payor
Individual Dedcutibles for Every Person based on income, no exceptions
Providers and Hospital can be public or private

Its very simple, it would be much cleaner and still ahev incentives for people to use their dollars wisely.

Lets abort this current TPA mess, and get on with it...
B-Large is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 08:42 AM   #59
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,477

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Says the guy touting a list that puts Libya ahead of Canada or the UK
Nope, I linked to Bloomberg's list and challenged you to find a list where US healthcare is indexed in the top thirty or better.

You can't, so you make another of your dumabass statements.

You, Price and Barry are typical of the current right wingnut philosophy.

"Ignorance is bliss"
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 08:46 AM   #60
B-Large
Ring of Famer
 
B-Large's Avatar
 
Expunged... Accidently?

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Again, there's no logic behind thinking it will work, because it does nothing to address the American system's real flaw.

Too many consumers are removed from the real cost of their healthcare. On one level, because of overinsurance. And that is multiplied by the fact that many (probably most) consumers don't even pay (much) out of pocket for the insurance itself.

Americans need to know and care more about what health services and insurance really cost them. The ACA does what most past reforms have done... it tries to further mask the true cost.

So it won't work. It can't work.
that why you do a system of single payor, with every person having a deductible to cover before the risk pool releases a dime of payment. Youget the efficiencies of a streamlined payment system witht the incentives for people to make better choices...
B-Large is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 09:00 AM   #61
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,188

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Nope, I linked to Bloomberg's list and challenged you to find a list where US healthcare is indexed in the top thirty or better.

You can't, so you make another of your dumabass statements.

You, Price and Barry are typical of the current right wingnut philosophy.

"Ignorance is bliss"
Did you look at the methodology. It's basically life expectancy over cost. Laughable.

The fact that you'd even link to it says everything.

I've already linked studies that show superior cancer outcomes in the US. That's not a product of luck. You tend to cite studies that lean on life expectancy (demographic) or cost efficiency (should we let Papa die, or sell our only Mule?), or how much government pays vs personal out of pocket (because government has magical money trees)
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 09:05 AM   #62
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,649

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
Single Payor
Individual Dedcutibles for Every Person based on income, no exceptions
Providers and Hospital can be public or private

Its very simple, it would be much cleaner and still ahev incentives for people to use their dollars wisely.Lets abort this current TPA mess, and get on with it...
With Single Payer everything is paid for with taxes and has the government making decisions for private citizens. Many citizens will hate the idea that their money will be paying and supporting the unhealthy decisions of others.

Write it down, it will never happen. No one wants to be told they have to pay to swim in a public pool where half of the people are pissing in it for free.
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 09:05 AM   #63
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,188

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
that why you do a system of single payor, with every person having a deductible to cover before the risk pool releases a dime of payment. Youget the efficiencies of a streamlined payment system witht the incentives for people to make better choices...
That all works up until the people with less money start skipping treatments because they can't afford the deductible and appeal to the news at 11. While the millionaires instantly see their private providers that don't accept the single-payer rabble.

In short, we wouldn't be much further along than we are today. As I've said, I'm not theoretically opposed to a backstop safety-net public program in the right circumstances. But in entitlement America, what it'll end up translating to is "I deserve the same service Bill Gates Gets!"

Which is high comedy. But it passes for critical thinking in some circles.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 09:16 AM   #64
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,477

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Did you look at the methodology. It's basically life expectancy over cost. Laughable.


Right, life expectancy has nothing to do with healthcare.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 09:20 AM   #65
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,477

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Did you look at the methodology. It's basically life expectancy over cost. Laughable.

The fact that you'd even link to it says everything.

I've already linked studies that show superior cancer outcomes in the US. That's not a product of luck. You tend to cite studies that lean on life expectancy (demographic) or cost efficiency (should we let Papa die, or sell our only Mule?), or how much government pays vs personal out of pocket (because government has magical money trees)
Some cancers, yes, that is not in dispute.

Quote:
Study Of 31 Countries Finds Wide Variations In Cancer Survival Rates
In the international comparison, the researchers saw the highest survival rates for breast and prostate cancer in the USA. They also noted Japan as having the highest survival for colon and rectal cancers in men and France as having the highest survival for colon and rectal cancers in women. Canada and Australia also ranked relatively high for most cancers, while Algeria clearly claimed the lowest survival for all cancers in both men and women.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/115086.php

Last edited by DenverBrit; 11-15-2013 at 09:23 AM..
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 09:24 AM   #66
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,188

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post


Right, life expectancy has nothing to do with healthcare.
I've posted this before.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...alth_care.html

It's basically your Comrade Yglesias dismantling the very "study" you posted.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 09:27 AM   #67
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,188

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Some cancers, yes, that is not in dispute.
Quote:
For all cancers, Europe had a much lower survival than the US. Survival for prostate cancer in the US is 91.9% compared to 57.1% in Europe - a 34% difference. The difference for breast cancer survival, however, is 10%. In Europe, the western countries generally had higher cancer survival rates: France led survival for rectum and colon cancers, Sweden led for breast cancer (82%), and Austria led for prostate cancer. Eastern Europe, on the other hand, did not perform as well. Slovakia had the lowest survival rates for rectal cancer in men and breast cancer, and Poland had the lowest survival rates for the other studied cancers.
Our Health Care is duh Worst!
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 09:35 AM   #68
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,477

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I've posted this before.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...alth_care.html

It's basically your Comrade Yglesias dismantling the very "study" you posted.
Good for him. So post a different ranking instead of deflecting and avoiding the subject.

My comrade?? WTF does that mean?

Are you implying I'm a communist because I disagree with your opinions??
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 10:07 AM   #69
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,188

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Good for him. So post a different ranking instead of deflecting and avoiding the subject.

My comrade?? WTF does that mean?

Are you implying I'm a communist because I disagree with your opinions??
Your own article shows we show very good Apples-to-Apples outcomes.

And I'm implying that Yglesias agrees with you in many ways on the Health Care front. But even he can't take the "study" you posted seriously.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 10:21 AM   #70
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post


Right, life expectancy has nothing to do with healthcare.
Interesting visualization:

http://www.healthmetricsandevaluatio.../us-health-map
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 10:34 AM   #71
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,188

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Hey, sweet. You can almost tell where all the reservations are. We better talk to whoever's in charge of their Health Care system.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 11:04 AM   #72
B-Large
Ring of Famer
 
B-Large's Avatar
 
Expunged... Accidently?

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
With Single Payer everything is paid for with taxes and has the government making decisions for private citizens. Many citizens will hate the idea that their money will be paying and supporting the unhealthy decisions of others.

Write it down, it will never happen. No one wants to be told they have to pay to swim in a public pool where half of the people are pissing in it for free.
At the end of the day, insurers and CMS pay for testing and procedures based on evidence based recommendations from expert panels.. does it really matter if the State of Colorado's Risk Pool Pays, or Cigna Colorado Risk Pool pays? If Government were to run it, at least Voters can change the HHS secretary if they didn't like the the expenditures on healthcare.. what recourse do you have with Cigna, litigation?

To your other point, we already pay for people who make bad decisions, thats risk pooling... and we also pay for people who go to cross fit every AM, have 5% fat and get pancreatic cancer... it all gets paid for on way or another, nobody is uimmune to healthcare costs, they WILL catch up with you at some point.. so why not implement the most efficient system possible?
B-Large is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 11:09 AM   #73
B-Large
Ring of Famer
 
B-Large's Avatar
 
Expunged... Accidently?

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
That all works up until the people with less money start skipping treatments because they can't afford the deductible and appeal to the news at 11. While the millionaires instantly see their private providers that don't accept the single-payer rabble.

In short, we wouldn't be much further along than we are today. As I've said, I'm not theoretically opposed to a backstop safety-net public program in the right circumstances. But in entitlement America, what it'll end up translating to is "I deserve the same service Bill Gates Gets!"

Which is high comedy. But it passes for critical thinking in some circles.
The deductible would be income based, so really outside of some peripheral financial hardship people don't really have an excuse.... Rich people already have conceige docs, but thatis for primary care- they will still have to work in the same system to see specialists just liek the rest of us...

Its probably one of the best proposed solutions out there, common risk pooling with a flavor of pay your own way..... hybrid if you will
B-Large is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 12:00 PM   #74
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
...

Life expectancy in Colorado (80 years) is the same as the U.K. (80). Yet you want the U.S. to go to single payer for life expectancy reasons?



Life expectancy in Hawaii (82.7 years) is better than in any single payer country.
pricejj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 12:08 PM   #75
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,188

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
The deductible would be income based, so really outside of some peripheral financial hardship people don't really have an excuse.... Rich people already have conceige docs, but thatis for primary care- they will still have to work in the same system to see specialists just liek the rest of us...
That's where you're missing something. Once the single-payer price fix sets in, a whole second market begins. The best providers take cash (or private coverage) and get paid what the market will pay. The lower-tier providers stay behind and manage the squeeze chute for the 'rest of us'

So long as everyone's ok with that, it works ok. Problem is, these same Progressives will never be ok with that once the rubber meets the road.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:08 PM.


Denver Broncos